>Bob Marston wrote:
>>
>>Huh? Are you saying that if there is a legitimate reason to question a
>>statement that we should suspend our skepticism and accept it at face value
>>because it was made on the letterhead of a major tube manufacturer????
>>
>
>No, of course not - for example, I argue strongly against EIMAC's
>recommendations for "linear" operating condx for the 4CX250R.
Which are?
>But if the company disgrees with me, I don't try to isolate individual
>engineers within the company,
However, would it matter whether the person who disagres with you works
in Eimac's engineering department or works in the marketing department?
>or try to discredit their personal
>qualifications and competence.
>
Anybody who makes questionable statements is fair game, Ian. Vanishing
gas, lower melting point gold, calculating average grid dissipation with
peak values, AC circuit analysis isn't valid for VHF suppressors,
rheostats are no good for adj. filament V, the Q of resistance wire
decreases between VHF and 28MHz, on and on.
>Those tactics are repugnant. They are also directly responsible for
>depriving this reflector of public contributions from EIMAC engineers -
>as one of them has told me by private e-mail.
Venturing a guess . . . could this person possbly be the Eimac
employee who, in the 9/94 issue of *QST*, suggested that lowering the
VHF-Q of a VHF parasitic suppressor was a commercial sales gimmick? If
it is, I should think that Mr. Brandon would have some comments about
Wes' seemingly-revolting scientific measurements of the W8JI/Tom Rauch
copper-wire suppressor versus a low VHF-Q resistance-wire suppressor.
cheers
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|